This dataset consists of benthic data from the Hawaii Coral Reef
Assessment and Monitoring Program (CRAMP) taken 2008-2010 from
24 sites on within 5 main Hawaiian Islands (Kauai, Oahu, Molokai,
Maui, and Hawaii). Most sites consist of two transects along
different isobaths, shallow (~2-4m) and deep (~7-13m) lines. A total
of 67 transects were completed between May 2008 - November 2010.
Quantitative estimates of substrate type and species were acquired.
The types and coverages were derived objectively from photographic images
using PhotoGrid, a software package which analyzes random points on
digital still images of coral reefs and substrate. This dataset does not
include the images from the transects, which are accessioned
within NOAA/NODC separately.

FILE FORMATS:
Original data received as CSV (ASCII) files, which are derived
from output of PhotoGrid for all surveyed lines.

Directory tree and files are as follows:
data/
0-data/ this denotes original files/directories as received by NODC

The original data were provided on 8 CDs. A directory was made for each CD,
cd01/, cd02/,....cd08/. Within each directory, organization varies. Some
do not have any subdirectories, only CSV files. Some have additional
subdirectories to sort by islands and sites. A summary of directories
and filenames is given in file ../data/0-data/NODC archive list.csv.

FILENAME for output of PhotoGrid in CSV format:
Convention is yyIISSSDDm.csv
yy : last two digits of year
II : island (first two letters of island name)
SSS : site (see STATIONS above)
DDm : depth in meters
(optional) TT : transect number
note: sometimes TT is left off if only one transect
some files are suffixed by c_

FILE FORMAT
Fields in these files:
Site Name - usually NA (not available)
Station - usually NA
Frame No - usually NA
Image Date - usually NA, get survey (image) date from filename
ID Name - equivalent to TaxonName in PointCount99, this is the species
recorded but for some organisms if not identifiable to the
species or even genus level then just to taxanomic level
ID Code - usually NA

The following are PhotoGrid parameters equivalent to PointCount parameters
of the same name.
Point - Point number on the frame
X - X coordinate on the image for each point
Y - Y coordinate on the image for each point
Intensity - value for the point
Red - RGB value on the image
Green - RGB value on the image
Blue - RGB value on the image

Note, in some files, field=Species is equivalent to ID Name above.

Notes from Kuulei Rodgers concerning these paramters:
"Point X and Y are the coodinates for each of the 50 points that are generated
on an image. This way if you want to go back and check if it is correct or
what someone called some organism it will regenerate the frame with the random
points that were originally used. If for example you see Pavona maldivensis
and want to see if that is correct because you don't think it is at that site
and may have been interpreted, you can go back and look at point number 7 to
see what is under it. The program will use the coordinates to reconstruct the
original random points on that frame. Red, Green and Blue are just the exact
colors as the person who first did the analysis saw it. Since you can adjust
the color balance and the contrast, the program saves the adjustments so it
can be revisited if need be later."

The remaining parameters can be ignored and are usally NA:
Total Points,ID Date,Site ID,Site Code,Time Code,Institution,User
Name,Habitat,WQS,Length,Depth

Reply from Ku'ulei Rodgers:
We use ACCESS, a relational database that calculates these for us
but it can be done in EXCEL as well by sorting alphabetically and deriving a
percent of the total for each substrate type. For example if you have 10
points that are Porites compressa and there are 20 frames with 50 points on
each, this would be 10 out of 1000 points for the whole transect so 1% cover.
This is then done for each substrate type. Then all the coral species
percentages are added together for a total coral cover number.

-This format is slightly different from the PhotoGrid output of previous
years. Any significance?

Reply from Ku'ulei Rodgers:
No significance. The Maui guys have added some algal species and other
substrate types because they want to know if there is any correlation with
increased algae and nutrient discharge.

Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service
United States Geological Survey
State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of
Aquatic Resources
Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Program
Limahuli National Botanical Garden
Save Our Seas

The emphasis of the program is on the major problems facing Hawaiian coral
reefs as listed by managers and reef scientists during workshops and meetings
held in Hawaii (1997-1998). These are:

over-fishing,
sedimentation,
eutrophication, and
algal outbreaks.

CRAMP experimental design gives priority to areas where baseline data relevant
to these issues were previously collected. Transect dimensions, number of
replicates, and methods of evaluation have been selected to detect changes
with statistical confidence. Standard techniques include the establishment of
permanent transects to quantify fish, coral, algae, and invertebrates at study sites.

CRAMP researchers are quantifying changes that have occurred on coral reefs
subjected to varying degrees of fishing pressure, sedimentation,
eutrophication, and algal growth and are conducting experimental work in
order to test hypotheses concerning the role of these environmental factors
in the ecology of coral reefs. We are also in the process of resurveying,
updating and integrating existing ecological information on an array of coral
reefs that have been designated as areas of concern or, "hot spots," by
managers and scientists.

METHODOLOGY
Since the initial methods comparison in 1998, CRAMP has improved its
methodology to keep up with advances in technology, replacing video with
digital stills. Unlike prior digital cameras, recent cameras have resolution
superior to video and the card media can store close to 1,000 high quality
images. The initial costs of the equipment are lower and the images can be
archived. The valuable in situ time is shorter as well as the time spent
processing the images. Frame-grabbing is completely eliminated. The video
camera cannot keep an exact distance from the bottom while the still camera
mounted on a simple monopod assures a constant distance. With a still camera,
there are no oblique angles that can affect results since the camera is held
completely vertical by the monopod. It is however important to use consistent
methodology when comparing sites spatially and/or temporally. Yet as newer and
better technology is introduced it is important to update and upgrade methods.
CRAMP began by using video techniques and replaced this with digital stills in
2003.

Prior to the switch, the compatibility of the methods was assessed through
intercalibration, using both methods (video and digital still images) at a
large number of sites (30) that encompassed a wide range of coral cover. Once
the methods proved compatible, all subsequent surveys were conducted with
digital cameras. Non-overlapping digital stills are taken to assess the
characteristics of benthic populations. High resolution digital images are
taken along a 10 m transect using an Olympus 5050 zoom digital camera with an
Olympus PT050 underwater housing. The camera is mounted to an aluminum monopod
frame, 1.7 m from the substrate to provide a 50x69 cm image. A 6 cm bar
provides a measurement scale. The software program PhotoGrid (Bird 2001) is
used to quantify percent cover, richness and diversity of corals, algal
functional groups and substrate cover. Images are downloaded and the 20
non-overlapping images from each 10 m transect are imported into PhotoGrid
where 50 randomly selected points are projected onto each image for a total of
1,000 points per transect.

NOAA makes no warranty regarding these data,expressed or implied, nor does the fact of distribution constitute such a warranty. NOAA, NESDIS, NODC and NCDDC cannot assume liability for any damages caused by any errors or omissions in these data, nor as a result of the failure of these data to function on a particular system.